Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 805 (KAR)

K. S. Liyak Ahemed v. State of Karnataka

2000-12-05

A.V.SRINIVASA REDDY, ASHOK BHAN

body2000
ORDER Ashok Bhan, J.—This petition has been filed as public interest litigation seeking a writ in the nature of declaration or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the effect that the 'Cock Fighting' is neither gaming nor a game of chance as contemplated under Section 2(7) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ('Act' for short). A consequential writ in the nature of a direction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful sports activity of cock fighting conducted by the farmers during their leisure time in and around Karkala village and other villages of the Dakshina Kannada District has also been sought. 2. It is averred that the cock fighting ("Koradatta" in local language) is a traditional game of Indian origin specifically found in the Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka State. Cock fighting is an age-old tradition of the people of Dakshina Kannada which relates back to the historic period of Koti Channayya who hailed from this part of the District. The farmers of the village before and after harvesting the paddy crops engage themselves in the activity of "Koradatta" as a sport of recreation. There is a special kind of breed of Cocks/Fowls which are known as game cocks which are used for cock fighting only. The farmers rear the cocks/fowls for the purpose of cock fighting as their hobby. Cock fighting is one of the most popular recreational facilities available to the farmers in the village without making any investment. 3. That Respondents No. 3 to 5 without any basis and valid reasons have been interfering with the activities of cock fighting conducted by the farmers of the village and thereby threatening to prosecute the farmers for the offences punishable under Section 87 of the Act. There are instances wherein the Respondents No. 3 to 5 have prosecuted and booked the farmers who had engaged themselves in the activity of cock fighting to take trial in accordance with Section 87 of the Act. 4. There are instances wherein the Respondents No. 3 to 5 have prosecuted and booked the farmers who had engaged themselves in the activity of cock fighting to take trial in accordance with Section 87 of the Act. 4. On these facts, the Petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the effect that the "Cock Fighting" (Koradatta "in local Tulu language") is neither a "gaming" nor a "game of chance" as contemplated under Section 2(7) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 as amended and the same is a sport or traditional game/recreation of the farmers of Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka State which is not governed by the provisions of Licensing and Controlling of Places or Public Amusement Order, 1989; (b) consequential writ in the nature of direction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful sport activity of Cock fighting conducted by the farmers during their leisure time in and around Karkala Village and other villages of the Dakshina Kannada District; (c) grant the Petitioner such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case. 5. It could be seen from the narration of facts that the Petitioner has filed this petition on mere apprehension or inference that Respondents No. 3 to 5 are interfering with the activities of cock fighting conducted by the farmers of the village. Alternatively without giving any instances it has been stated that Respondents No. 3 to 5 have prosecuted the farmers who had engaged in the activity of cock fighting to take the trial in accordance with Section 87 of the Act. 6. The petition is misconceived. In case, Respondents No. 3 to 5 register a case against the farmers under Section 87 of the Act and prosecute them, then it would for the Court in which the charge is lodged in to determine on the evidence led before it, as to whether the activity of cock fighting being conducted by the farmers would fall under Section 87 of the Act or not? Further, it would be for the Court to decide as to whether there was any betting on the game of cock fighting or not? These questions cannot be pre-determined at this stage. Further, it would be for the Court to decide as to whether there was any betting on the game of cock fighting or not? These questions cannot be pre-determined at this stage. It would amount to pre-judging the issue and unnecessary interference in the administer of justice without any evidence. 7. A declaration and consequential reliefs as prayed for by the Petitioner cannot be granted on the facts placed before us. Dismissed. No costs.